Nature Publishing Group, publisher of Nature, and other science journals and reference works
Nature
my account e-alerts subscribe register
   
Monday 23 November 2009
Journal Home
Current Issue
AOP
Archive
Download PDF
References
Export citation
Export references
Send to a friend
More articles like this

Letters to Nature
Nature 385, 141 - 143 (09 January 1997); doi:10.1038/385141a0

Entropy difference between the face-centred cubic and hexagonal close-packed crystal structures

L. V. Woodcock

Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Bradford, Bradford BD7 1DP, UK

SPHERES can be stacked into two close-packed crystalline arrangements, face-centred cubic (f.c.c.) and hexagonal closed-packed (h.c.p.), which have identical close-packed volumes1 and very similar equations of state2. But they are structurally distinct, implying that they might have different thermodynamic properties and stabilities. Finding a difference in free energy between the two structures has been the objective of much theoretical3,4 and computational5–7 effort, but without a conclusive resolution. Here I report that a significant difference in the pressure–volume (P–V) behaviour can be detected in the vicinity of a mechanical instability point within a single-occupancy cell model8 of these packings. This model provides an exact thermodynamically reversible path between the two structures, and so the P–V isotherms can be integrated to obtain the Gibbs free-energy difference. I find that the f.c.c. phase is more stable by around 0.005RT per mol (where R is the universal gas constant); as the enthalpy difference is negligible, this implies that the entropy difference is of the order of 0.005R for all temperatures up to the melting point.

  1. Kittel, C. Introduction to Solid State Physics 5th Edn, Ch. 1 (Wiley, New York, 1976).
  2. Alder, B. J., Hoover, W. G. & Young, D. A. J. Chem. Phys. 49, 3688−3696 (1968). | Article | ISI | ChemPort |
  3. Stillinger, F. H. & Salsburg, Z. W. J. Chem. Phys. 46, 3962−3975 (1967). | Article | ChemPort |
  4. Rudd, W. G., Salzburg, Z. W., Yu, A. P. & Stillinger, F. H. Jr J. Chem. Phys. 49, 4857−4863 (1968). | Article | ChemPort |
  5. Alder, B. J., Carter, B. P. & Young, D. A. Phys. Rev. 183, 831−833 (1969). | Article | ChemPort |
  6. Alder, B. J., Young, D. A., Mansigh, M. R. & Salzburg, Z. W. J. Comput. Phys. 7, 361−366 (1971). | Article | ChemPort |
  7. Frenkel, D. & Ladd, A. J. C. J. Chem. Phys. 81, 3188−3193 (1984). | Article | ISI | ChemPort |
  8. Kirkwood, J. G. J. Chem. Phys. 18, 380−382 (1950). | Article | ChemPort |
  9. Hoover, W. G. & Ree, F. H. J. Chem. Phys. 49, 3609−3619 (1968). | Article | ISI | ChemPort |
  10. Camahan, N. F. & Starling, K. E. J. Chem. Phys. 51, 635−638 (1979).
  11. Woodcock, L. V. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 371, 274−298 (1981). | ChemPort |



© 1997 Nature Publishing Group
Privacy Policy